$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$

연합인증

연합인증 가입 기관의 연구자들은 소속기관의 인증정보(ID와 암호)를 이용해 다른 대학, 연구기관, 서비스 공급자의 다양한 온라인 자원과 연구 데이터를 이용할 수 있습니다.

이는 여행자가 자국에서 발행 받은 여권으로 세계 각국을 자유롭게 여행할 수 있는 것과 같습니다.

연합인증으로 이용이 가능한 서비스는 NTIS, DataON, Edison, Kafe, Webinar 등이 있습니다.

한번의 인증절차만으로 연합인증 가입 서비스에 추가 로그인 없이 이용이 가능합니다.

다만, 연합인증을 위해서는 최초 1회만 인증 절차가 필요합니다. (회원이 아닐 경우 회원 가입이 필요합니다.)

연합인증 절차는 다음과 같습니다.

최초이용시에는
ScienceON에 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 로그인 (본인 확인 또는 회원가입) → 서비스 이용

그 이후에는
ScienceON 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 서비스 이용

연합인증을 활용하시면 KISTI가 제공하는 다양한 서비스를 편리하게 이용하실 수 있습니다.

가집행선고의 실효로 인한 가지급물 반환의무의 준거법
The Law Applicable to Obligations to Return Provisional Payments Resulting from Termination of Declaration of Provisional Execution

법학연구 v.51 2017년, pp.507 - 545  

석광현 (서울대학교)

초록
AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

At the request of a shipbuilding company, an insurance company (“Defendant”) issued a refund guarantee of advance payment in favor of the buyer, which was later assigned to the financing institutions (“Plaintiffs”) that provided the shipbuilding finance. The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendant seeking the return of advance payment pursuant to the refund guarantee and default interest thereon calculated at the rate set forth by the “Special Act on Acceleration of Litigation, etc.” (“Special Act”). The Supreme Court held that the Special Act on statutory interest rate cannot be characterized only as a matter of procedure, even though it is applied in relation to remedies through litigations in order to expedite litigations. Since the purpose of the Special Act is to set the extent of damages resulting from failure to duly perform monetary obligations, the Supreme Court decided that the Special Act was not applicable to the present case which centered around an obligation governed by English law. However, even though the author acknowledges that the default interest accruing from late payment is a matter of substance, the author still believes that the Special Act should be applicable to the case at hand as the law of the forum, since the Special Act’s purpose of promoting judicial economy is more important. The Plaintiffs won the case in its entirety at the first instance, and the court of first instance’s judgement included a declaration of provisional execution. In order to avoid compulsory execution of the judgment, the Defendant made a provisional payment according to the judgment. The Defendant later filed an appeal and applied for the return of the provisional payment. At the second instance, the Plaintiffs were required to return the provisional payment, since part of the judgment of the first instance was repealed and the declaration of provisional execution was partly invalidated. The interest rate applicable to the provisional payment to be returned became the issue. The Plaintiffs argued that English law applicable to the refund guarantee should also be applicable to the unjust enrichment pursuant to the accessory connecting principle under the proviso of Article 31 of the Private International Law Act (“PILA”). Under this view, the interest rate would be 8%. However, the Supreme Court held that the Special Act was applicable to the case and applied the higher interest rate of 20% under the Special Act. The Supreme Court’s rationale was that the proviso of Article 31 of the PILA was not applicable to the Plaintiffs’ obligation to return the provisional payment, since such obligation is a statutory one prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act. The fact that the Supreme Court discussed the application of the proviso of Article 31 of the PILA could be interpreted as an indication that the Supreme Court characterized the obligation to return provisional payment as a matter of substance. However, the author believes that the fact that the Supreme Court applied Korean law directly without first applying the PILA in order to determine the law applicable to unjust enrichment indicates that the Supreme Court characterized the obligation as a matter of procedure and therefore applied Korean law as the law of the forum according to the so-called “lex fori principle”. While applying for the return of the provisional payment, the Defendant argued that the default interest should be calculated at the rate set forth by the Special Act, whereas the Plaintiffs argued that the rate under English law should be applied. The Supreme Court applied the interest rate under the Special Act. This is probably because the Supreme Court regarded the default interest resulting from the late payment of the return of the provisional payment as a matter of procedure. However, the author believes that the Supreme Court’s conclusion on this point is inconsistent with the holding of the Supreme Court on the f...

관련 콘텐츠

섹션별 컨텐츠 바로가기

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

AI-Helper 아이콘
AI-Helper
안녕하세요, AI-Helper입니다. 좌측 "선택된 텍스트"에서 텍스트를 선택하여 요약, 번역, 용어설명을 실행하세요.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.

선택된 텍스트

맨위로